> I said that there doesn't need to be a unifying theory for a field to be considered a science.

But that's false. All scientific fields have testable, unifying theories -- single theories that all practitioners agree define their field (even if they plan to falsify the theory) -- and that defines them as practitioners.

You name the field, and I will tell you the single, unifying theory that defines the field. Only one requirement -- you have to choose a science, not a pseudoscience.

> "One unifying theory" and "a field united by theories" are two different things.

Yes -- one describes to the cause, the other describes the effect. Both refer to the requirement that a scientific field be defined by a unifying theory, a theory that makes physics physics, or biology biology. A theory that successfully distinguishes astronomy from astrology. In other words, you're splitting hairs.

> You're misrepresenting my words again, even after quoting them.

I did nothing of the kind, and I just proved it.

> You seem to think that, since theories can be falsified, they have nothing to do with the truth.

That is not something I seem to think, that is a fact. Truth cannot be falsified -- that is not how truth is logically defined. A tentative truth is not a truth. A potentially falsifiable truth is not a truth (that's a theory).

> The truth is that gravity can be modeled with some equations.

This deliberately conflates a statement about gravitational equations with a statement about gravitational theory. If you had instead said "gravity can be accurately modeled with some equations" that would be different -- very different. The first makes a factual statement about an equation, the second makes a theoretical statement about physics.

> So you don't have a definition of science, you only have disagreement to other definitions?

I defined science based on its requirements, requirements accepted by all scientists and granting agencies. Science is even defined in courts of law at times, as in this example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

The above legal ruling, meant to keep Creationism out of the classroom, defines science this way:

1. It is guided by natural law;

2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;

3. It is testable against the empirical world;

4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

5. It is falsifiable.

So you see, I didn't invent this definition -- it is one on which scientists agree, even those who oppose science on philosophical grounds.

>> I never said this, anywhere. Those are not my words.

> Then I misunderstood.

Misquotations don't arise from misunderstandings, and all such cases can be resolved by using only actual quotations -- by using copy, paste and no creative typing.

>> I will know psychology as a field has reached the threshold of science when psychologists courageously propose a central, unifying, falsifiable theory, amenable to practical test that, if it fails, invalidates the entire field.

> I completely disagree. They can have two, three, or a hundred theories like that, and still be a science.

1. You just declared astrology a science. Congratulations. By your reasoning, astrology is part of astronomy, differing in only a few theoretical details. But to a scientist, astrology is not astronomy because it has a different theory.

2. Do you know why cellular biology is not particle physics? Different theories.

3. DO you know why particle physics and cosmology are both accepted as part of physics? Same theory.

4. Do you know why physics is accepted as a science? It's because all practitioners of physics, from theoreticians to engineers who build bridges, all agree on the single theory that defines what they do, and that defines physics and distinguishes it from other scientific fields as well as unscientific fields.

If a doctor claims that shaking a dried gourd over a cold sufferer will eventually make the patient better, and claims the reason is the gourd treatment, he has crafted a theory, but it's not a medical theory -- it contradicts the prevailing theory that defines medicine.

The dried-gourd practitioner is excluded from medicine because his theory doesn't conform to the defining theory of the field. That by itself is sufficient reason to have a single theory (there are other equally important reasons).

> And then misrepresented the meaning of the words you just quoted, as above.

You failed to make your case.

> I misunderstood one of your (unfounded) disagreements, hardly an indictment.

Your invented quotation wasn't a misunderstanding, it resulted from your unwillingness to quote only my words directly, using the traditional and undemanding copy, paste meme.